Telangana High Court
Ibrahim Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 11 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.6828 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.Phanindra Bhargav, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, and perused. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of open land to an extent of 695 sq. yards in Sy.No.241/EE situated at Shadnagar Shivar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 06-11-2020 from its previous owner.
3. Petitioners further contends that since the said property purchased by them was in an unapproved layout and as respondent Nos.3 and 4 were high handedly interfering with their possession, they had approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.16439 of 2020, wherein this Court had directed respondent 2 Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with petitioners' possession without following due process of law.
4. Petitioners further contend that since the subject open land purchased by them did not form part of any layout, they had applied for regularization of the aforesaid plot under G.O.Ms.Nos.131 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Plg.III) Department dated 31-08-2020 by making an application on 11-09-2020, and the said application has been kept pending, which action, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the subject plot purchased by the petitioners does not have any plot number and the subject plot was earmarked as park land in an unapproved layout and as such, the same cannot be regularized.
6. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.
7. Since, the petitioners are claiming that they have purchased the subject plot and have applied seeking regularization of the same under the LRS Scheme, 2020, it is necessary to examine the applicability of the said Scheme under which the petitioners are seeking regularization.
3
8. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 31-08-2020 intending to regularize the unapproved and illegal layouts in the State of Telangana. As per the said Scheme introduced under the aforesaid G.O., which is called "Telangana Regularization of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2020" (for short 'the Rules'), the Rules have been made applicable to the entire State of Telangana in respect of all existing unapproved sub- division of plots, existing unapproved layouts or ventures promoted by land owners/private developers/firms/ companies/property developers/Societies where (i) the plots have been sold through a registered sale deed, (ii) unauthorized layouts developed provided atleast 10% of plots are sold through registered sale deed, on or before 26-08-2020.
9. Further, the Rules defined the term 'unapproved/illegal layout' under Rule 3(a) and 'plot holder' under rule 3(c)(ii). The aforesaid Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.131 further specified that the cut-off date for considering regularization of unapproved layouts in respect of sale deed/title deeds existing as on 26-08-2020 for making application seeking regularization as 15-10-2020. 4
10. A reading of the aforesaid G.O. indicates that the Government by the aforesaid G.O. intended to regularize the plots of two categories viz., (i) applications made by the developers/firms for entire layout developed by them, which did not have final approval from the concerned authorities and (ii) to individuals who have purchased plots in an approved/illegal layout where the developer/land owner did not make any application seeking regularization under the aforesaid Scheme.
11. If the aforesaid object is taken into consideration, it is to be seen that the subject open land purchased by the petitioners does not form part of any layout, be it unauthorized or illegal layout. On the other hand, the subject open land purchased by the petitioners was forming part of larger extent of land admeasuring 1295 sq. yards, which has been divided into two parts with 695 sq. yards being sold to the petitioners.
12. Thus, the claim of the petitioners of they having made application seeking regularization under the Rules introduced by the aforesaid G.O., it is to be noted that that the aforesaid Rules notified do not apply to the case of the petitioners in hand inasmuch neither they can be considered as land owners, who had 5 made an illegal and unauthorized layout nor petitioners being owners of plot in an unapproved or illegal layout.
13. Further, it is also to be noted that subject open plot being claimed by the petitioners does not have any plot number, as can be seen from the sale deed dated 06-03-2020, except mentioning the survey number, this Court is of the view that the petitioners could not and cannot have made an application for regularizing their plot by considering as sub-division of plot inasmuch as there is no plot number itself exists to the large extent of part of petitioners' vendor admeasuring 1295 sq. yards for considering the petitioner's plot as sub-division thereof.
14. Thus, for the said reason also, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit under the aforesaid G.O. since the said extent of 695 sq. yards cannot be considered as sub-division in an unapproved/illegal layout or a plot of the larger extent of 1295 sq. yards of open plot belonging to the original owner in an unapproved/illegal lay-out.
15. Further, as contended by the learned Standing Counsel that since the subject open land purchased by the petitioners is earmarked as park land in the layout vide File No.14489/1988, it is 6 be noted that even if it is an unapproved or illegal layout, the lands which are earmarked as park land or open land, cannot be permitted to be sold since the same are to serve as lung space (See Anjuman E Shiate Ali and others Vs. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group and others 1 and Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners Vs. V.Gopinath and others 2).
16. Thus, considered from any angle, the claim of the petitioners that non-consideration of their application seeking for regularization of the plot under the Rules, in the considered view of this Court, is without any valid basis for this Court to issue any direction to respondents to consider the same. Thus, the Writ Petition has to fail.
17. However, since the petitioners claim that at the time of making application seeking regularization of the subject plot, have made payment of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent authorities, this Court is of the view that it is open for the petitioners to approach the respondent authorities and seek for refund of the aforesaid payment made.
1 (2020) 20 SCC 698 2 AIR 2023 SC 101 7
18. Subject to above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 11.07.2024 Vsv